Absolutely devesated

[Beth2511]

Parents dog bit my 8 month old on the head, 2 bites marks on head and one on hand. Luckily there was only 1 puncture wound and no lasting damage but was so close to her eye! Took her to A&E who obviously need to inform social services.

I have felt a while my parents can't put my babies safety above the dog which was highlighted when all my parents were concerned about was whether the dog would be put down. Apparently I only took her to hospital to force them to get rid of the dog. For what its worth, I don't want the dog put down, I just want her caged when baby is around.

Is she likely to be put down? Am I in for a rough time from social services? I wasn't even there at the time.

[Blu]

The update says that the dog had the neighbour's dog pinned down by its throat, not the neighbour!

But that does demonstrate that the OP's parents have no effective control over the dog and have not trained it or socialised it properly.

And also that this dog is big / strong enough to pin another dog down - so not a teeny dog, in the context of a baby / toddler.

The neighbour could possibly get an ASBO slapped on them!

[FantasticButtocks]

It's a shame you can't have your parents put down - they sound bloody awful! They were not looking after your child properly, not watching, not supervising, totally negligent. And they weren't sorry either. I wouldn't have them looking after your child ever again, regardless of what they do about the dog. They do not seem to grasp the importance of keeping your child safe.

[Pohtaytoh]

Guilty of not reading the full thread, but went back and all i can see is the dog had neighbour dog by the throat (difficult to tell if attack or playing as no mention of vets?- my mums dogs rough house in this way, if you are there you can tell the difference- yes they are socislised ex guide dogs). And other update from OP which mentions a bone - completely irresponsible of the OPs parents to have a prized food item around a dog and baby!!!!!

So LazyLouLou i stand by my post.

[Floggingmolly]

It needs to be put down. They shouldn't actually have a choice, at this stage...

[hedgehogsdontbite]

Your parents are being complete and utter irresponsible twats.

My gorgeous, much loved dog of 11 years did the same to DS when he was 8 months old. Only the lightening quick reaction of DH stopped DS being seriously hurt. While I took DS to the hospital DH took the dog to the vets to be put to sleep. The doctor at A&E did not inform SS in our case because she knew DS would be safe when he got home.

The decision to put the dog to sleep was the easiest decision to make but the hardest decision to live with.

[Wishful80sMontage]

honeylemon that's terrible :(

[specialsubject]

This is 'ickle fur baby' syndrome on behalf of the owners. It is a dog. It behaves as a dog does. It will never change.

no need to put it down but it cannot be let near the child, so one or other must be caged when in the same house. Breed of dog irrelevant, they can all attack because that is what dogs do.

sorry OP, if they won't see it that way then you need to find alternative childcare.

[Elsashmelsa]

Your parents are at fault OP but not just in this example. They are cruel to their dog because they haven't provided the training that every dog needs and deserves.

One of the fundamental aspects of training is ensuring that a bowl of food/favourite toy/bone can be removed from a dog at any point without it getting aggressive. It's a very basic training requirement.

When both of our labs were pups we regularly removed their food, mid-meal and then treated them for sitting and waiting patiently for it to be returned. We also make them sit and wait next to their full bowls before they're given a command to start their food. Dogs have to know who is in charge and clearly in your parent's house their dog is.

DD regularly takes things away from our dogs and other than looking a bit sad about it, they would never even growl let alone bite.

Having said that, she shouldn't have been left alone with the dog anyway.

It's not the poor dog's fault, the fault lies completely at the feet of your parents. I don't think the dog should be PTS but should be placed with a family or will properly train and care for it, before someone else is hurt.

[penny13610]

Fantastic has a good but unworkable idea.

Unfortunately your parents have now taught their dog that it is all right to maim and/or kill children. The dog does need to be PTS, your parents should get a rabbit or something similar as a more suitable pet.
Talk to SS, get help to protect your child and other children.
You are in the right, believe in yourself.
I hope someone in RL is supporting you, this is an awful thing to go through.

[LazyLouLou]

Oops, can't believe I missed the word "dog" out of my last post

But it still shows that the dog is not acting 'normally' that it is aggressive and OPs parents are crap at looking after its best interests.

But, it has bitten hard enough to break skin, it did not stop at nip... never a good think to assume that this will be the end of it.

Posters can stand by their opinion all they like, but I would much rather stand by OP and help her ensure that the dog is never in the same place as her dd.

Over and above that the incident needs to be reported for experts to decide on the fate of the dog.

[caeleth84]

I'd say the dog definitely wasn't at fault, that's on your parents for not supervising. I'd not push for the dog to put down since there's nothing in your responses to suggest it's aggressive. However, I wouldn't let your parents babysit again unless they do recognize the seriousness in this and make sure the dog and baby are properly supervised at all times.

Fwiw, I was bitten by our dog once. I was older, around 8 or so, and the dog misinterpreted and thought I was going for his bone. We didn't put him down (I didn't want to!) and he was never aggressive again. It was just a misunderstanding, and it really was my own fault, not the dogs. He was miserable about it for ages afterwards, you could tell it was just an instinctive move on his part that and no malice from him. Children should always be supervised around dogs, that's just common sense.

[Baddz]

The dog needs to be pts.

[GraysAnalogy]

No the dog doesn't need to be put to sleep it just needs proper training. Anyone should know that you don't let children near the dogs toys or food. Mine are trained to not mind, but I still educate my son and any other person that we have to show respect for the dog as it is first and foremost an animal, not just a pet. And not a robot that is completely programmed and predictable.

It's sickening how many people think the death penalty - and that's what you're all talking about forget all this twee 'put to sleep' business, is the first port of call for this animal. You all act like you're doing it for the greater good when in fact it's just revenge for what the dog did.

I'm so so sorry that your little girl has been hurt, because of your parents not safe guarding her and their dog. This was so preventable.

[Blu]

Your parents sound unsuitable to care for a child just entering the crawling / toddling / reaching everything stage - apart from everything else, having a baby and a dogs chew toy / bone within reach and putting-in-mouth potential is just disgusting. They should have intervened when they saw her reach for the bone in the first place, on hygiene grounds alone.

I don't think you will be 'in for a rough time' with SS - you will be able to re-assure them that you will not be leaving your dd with your parents unsupervised, ever, and she will never be there when the dog is free. At the very least. But it may be no bad thing to give your parents a fright - and you could ask the SW what the legal position is over a dog not sufficiently trained, whether SS have any powers to advise that a dog be pts, and you could tell her that subsequent to the incident you have been told that it troubled the neighbour's dog.

The incident with the neighbour's dog doesn't sound like friendly rough housing if the neighbour was concerned enough to text you about it.

I hope you and your dd are OK.

[Dilema76]

If my parents put a dog before the safety of my child then that would be the end of our relationship. It's a pity you can't choose family because I find most of mine an utter pain in the arse.

[SilentCharisma]

I'm a huge dog lover and grew up with them. In fact I just spent about ten minutes chatting to the most beautiful Doberman tied up outside the bank. He was lovely.

However - I do believe this dog that attacked the OP's baby should be put down. The dogs I grew up with, and my brother grew up with, would have never done something like that over a bone being taken away, due to their good temperament.

They recognised we were babies / toddlers / small children (or puppies to them, no idea how doggy minds work) and put up with us mauling them and trying their dog food (horrible I know) and getting in their baskets with them and I took my first steps using our Irish Wolfhound mongrel as support! My parents never let us hurt them, but we 'explored' our doggy companions, and played with their toys. Never a problem.

Well tempered dogs should put up with this sort of interaction, and I wouldn't feel comfortable as an adult owning a dog that was aggressive if I removed it's food or a bone or whatever, let alone having a baby near it.

[WyrdByrd]

I would be very dubious if I were you about letting your parents have DD on their own - do you really trust them 100% to keep the dog caged when they have her? It sounds like they are already making excuses for the dog.

BIL's dog went for DD when she was 3.5, completely unprovoked. It is always either out doors or muzzled when we see them now, but I have never allowed her to be around it without DH or I there and she is nearly 11 now. In that time it's shown aggression towards her on at least 2 further occasions.

I don't think I could trust the dog or the GPs if I were in your position tbh.

[WyrdByrd]

Right have just RTFT properly - everything I said above with bells on and it sounds like the dog should definitely be put down.

[SorchaN]

It's sickening how many people think the death penalty - and that's what you're all talking about forget all this twee 'put to sleep' business, is the first port of call for this animal. You all act like you're doing it for the greater good when in fact it's just revenge for what the dog did.

I disagree completely with this sentiment. Calling it 'the death penalty' is in the same realm as 'fur baby' - it's anthropomorphising and inappropriate. And neither is euthanising the dog a matter of revenge: it's about preventing further, and possibly even more serious, attacks on people.

However, I'm not convinced that the OP's parents are sufficiently concerned about the baby's safety, dog or no dog. Even if they rehomed the dog, they don't seem like the sort of people who can be trusted to look after a small child, because they didn't take her to the hospital when she was injured and they haven't expressed any interest in how she's doing now.

OP, unfortunately it looks as if you are going to have to find alternative childcare, because - for whatever reason - your parents are unable to provide safe enough care for your child. It's crap, but you will find a way. I hope your little one feels better soon.

[rumbleinthrjungle]

OP has already said she is not going to demand that her parents kill their dog. Apart from anything else, if she has their dog forcibly removed and killed by outside agencies that will be the end of their relationship. Outside agencies are also likely to point out the dog did not randomly attack, the attack arose from baby bothering the dog until the dog reacted: the result of utter stupidity on the part of the GPs.

The bottom line is that this could have had an utterly unthinkable outcome, it arose from the GPs utter bloody stupidity and the OP has had her fears confirmed that the parents are not responsible carers for the baby and shouldn't have her without supervision. I would not ever take the baby into the house with the dog again, end of, and all visits would now take place outside their home.

Social services will want to know your plan for avoiding this happening again OP, and not taking the baby into their home again will cover it. (Obviously the dog cannot under any circumstances come with them on a visit.) You may well be able to enlist SS's help in making this absolutely clear to your parents. Dog and baby now live entirely separate lives. This doesn't help you at all with your childcare issues, but I would take your parents' help out of the equation altogether while you make your plans.

[GraysAnalogy]

sorcha In my view if the penalty for bad behaviour is death, then it's a death penalty. And I don't for one second think everyone who wants it put down is doing so for preventative purposes. Some people see it as a fitting punishment, even if they don't admit it to themselves

There was a video recently of a child pulling on a dogs tail, the dog was showing signs of being annoyed but the parent carried on videoing. The dog bit the child. The comments on that video were vile. Saying the dog needed to 'pay with it's life' amongst them.

[thegreylady]

If my dogs had ever hurt a grandchild the dog would have been put to sleep.